January 26th, 2009 (12:07 am)
“Human nature cannot turn back. Once man has left the time of innocence and equality, he can never return to it.” (Rousseau as qtd in Franklin) But was humanity ever innocent? The evil doings of man have been recorded before written language. Stories were told of the barbaric deeds of humanity-the Jews killing Jesus, Eve eating the apple- all things we should not have done, yet did because we wanted to.
The views of human nature have been altered throughout the centuries. In the Middle Ages man was thought to be worthless, and when the black plague came it was considered to be a punishment for all of man’s evil deeds or that is what many believed and many “tried to avert the scourge of God” (Hunt, 481) and how did they do this? By killing Jews- as if taking the lives of others was the right way to save themselves from hell. This was during a time period with a very basic understanding of the world, and yet these peoples conscious told them that by taking the lives of others they can save themselves. Directly after the Middle Ages came the Renaissance. The renaissance became known as the rebirth of the concept that humanity was not evil. There was a new connection “among power, culture, and fame in an age that was rediscovering the arts and the worldview of classical antiquity” (Hunt, 505). These beliefs became so popular that a movement known as the Enlightenment commenced. Many philosophes believed that humans still had a chance to be good under the right conditions. But inevitably humanity failed the philisophes. The ill treatment of people during the Industrial revolution as well as during World War I showed that people would never change their selfish ways.
In the 1500s the most holy people were failing to be honest people. The clergy told people that as a way to prevent their souls from going to hell they could earn a church “indulgence”. These indulgences usually were obtained by giving the church money. It became a common church practice to sell indulgences instead of having people do good works. As explained by experts in the field of history “[This] suggested that the church was more interested in making money than in saving souls” (Hunt, 549). If alleged holy people are capable of being selfish then what about the rest of us?
For awhile it appeared that there was hope for humanity. In the 1740s a new movement known as the Enlightenment began. This intellectual movement involved philosophers dedicated to solving the real problems of the world, including the question of the “nature of man”. One great philosophe who may cause a rebuttal to the argument that humans are naturally evil was John Locke. As explained within the text of The Making of The West, a text book written by highly qualified historians, they explained that John Locke believed that human’s are not truly evil by nature. “Unlike Hobbes…he thought people were reasonable and the state of nature peaceful” (Hunt, 650). He believed that we are all born as a tabula rassa or a blank slate, and that it is society that causes us to act certain ways. Yet, if we are born as clean as John Locke suggested, then why do we have such a dishonest society? If that held true, our society would have began without such corruption.
It was the realities of the Industrial Revolution that started to etch away the fantasies that were born during the Enlightenment. Manchester a new city that became the icon which all industrial city’s modeled off of, became the primary example of how humans could care less about one another. Manchester became a slum full of factories and filthy sewers. The residents of Manchester did nothing to prevent the dark cloud over the city. But worst of all- they did not do anything to help each other. Frederick Engles an renowned philosophe who visited Manchester wrote, “he who turns in thither gets into a filth and disgusting grime, the equal of which is not to be found - especially in the courts which lead down to the Irk, and which contain unqualifiedly the most horrible dwellings which I have yet beheld.” (Engles) The poor factory workers had to work over time with no pay, in dangerous conditions, and if anything happened to the workers in these dangerous factories they were responsible. These new factory owners could care less about their employees. Even though it was these vital workers who made their fortunes, these factory owners only cared for their interests. Some may even argue that holds true for today. One of the biggest corporations named Wal-Mart deals with many lawsuits about their treatment of employees. Many of the Wal-Mart employee’s felt unjust and like just a number in a pool of employee’s. Wal-Mart however does try to “brainwash” their employee’s by having gatherings, cheers, and songs as portrayed in a television special about the corporation. But as Barbara Ehrenreich describes in her book, “How, she wondered, would the four million women (most with children) soon to be pushed off the rolls and into the labor market make their way on wages of $6 or $7 an hour -- an amount that it was universally agreed was not a living wage?” (Gallagher) A wage that Wal-Mart and other major corporations pay to their employers who need to survive off of that salary.
If that is how bosses treat their employees then what about how rulers treat their citizens? Historians mark the beginning of World War I the end official end of the Enlightenment because if is the time when all philosophers gave up hope in any good in humanity. How could anyone allow for such a catastrophe? Throughout the centuries wars have been fought for many reasons -religion, land, and pride- but were any of these really worth the death of hundreds sometimes millions of lives? As written in a poem by Owen during the war he writes, “What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?” (Owen) How can anyone look another human being in the eye-a human being made from the same blood and bones as he or she is- and kill them? Does this not show the epitome of our disgusting race? How can war be considered valiant? People who “serve their country”- why would anyone want to hurt another person? Why can we not accept that we just have different beliefs? Or why can we not just accept that we live in this or that country? How can anyone live themselves after something like that? Why does it ever have to come down to an extreme such as warfare?
People will not even try to help their fellow man. Not without an initiative. It is as if the word charity has become “something given to a person or persons in need while getting something in return”. People work with charity’s sometimes in order to gain tax exemptions. According to the IRS website, “To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.” (IRS) Also people who donate to these charities can also qualify to receive some tax exemptions. Such exemptions may appeal to a donor as a catalyst to donate. Even an incentive to join the army, soldiers could gain a free education and tax returns for serving their country. It is as if for every penny we hand out, we need a reason to do it. It is as if we can not help unless we get some sort of reparation or acknowledgement for it. Charity’s now advertise that you can get a free shirt or free meal for donating. Embarrassingly enough even the military uses such tactics to recruit soldiers. On a televised advertising campaign the military stated that if you join you even get a “free messenger bag”. Centuries earlier Kings and Queens used to give to the poor because it improved their image. There always seems to be an underlying incentive for helping others.
But should we be surprised? We can not even help ourselves. Global warming has become scientifically a problem. Al Gore showed in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth all the numbers to prove it is a problem to the world. But people still will not do anything drastic enough to help the crisis. Some people are buying hybrid cars for the wrong reasons: They will get tax cuts. How can live with ourselves knowing we are buying hummers while our Earth is being destroyed by them? We are choosing what is comfortable for us now, without even thinking of the consequences they will have in the future.
We will not help others, we will not help ourselves, and we are even out to hurt others. We sell products that we know can kill people. Cigarettes have been linked with deadly illnesses. How can cigarette corporations sell these death sticks and not feel any remorse or guilt? TRUTH, an anti-cigarette organization has posted televised advertisements to show how cigarette companies are even targeting their product to children. It seems absurd, doesn’t it? But no one is doing anything drastic about it, are they?
Two philosophers are always compared in the discussion of the true nature of man. Their names are Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli. Thomas More in his book Utopia lamented the way humans behave. He believed that our decisions and the things we care for are all fabricated. He believed that if we lived in a world like the one in his book, we would all be humane to one another. He even expresses all the strange decisions we made. For example, “…people play-dice, cards, backgammon, tennis, bowls, quoits-what are they but quick methods of wasting a man’s money, and sending him straight off to become a thief?....In other words, you create thieves, and then punish them for stealing!” (More 27) Yet More has hope! Like John Locke, he believed that if our society changed, and we brought up our predecessors with different values, that humans would once again be good. On the other end of the spectrum is Machiavelli. Machiavelli believed that it is our human nature to be selfish and full of desire. He believed that people needed rulers who would understand this, and learn to cater to this folly. His book The Prince became a guideline for all rulers, on how to rule. Even if you take some of the mistakes previous rulers made in the past, you could find that Machiavelli did warn them of such mistakes. People sometimes wonder why Machiavelli didn’t become a king himself. “…he lacked nothing to reign except a realm” (Machiavelli 26) Machiavelli explains that “men change rulers willingly, hoping to better their lot, and this belief makes them take arms against their ruler.” (Machiavelli 10) People are always out to better themselves, even if their ruler is amazing, if they feel that they can better themselves they will cross their ruler. That is simply the way of man.
We should not be surprised anymore. When air planes hit two towers killing thousands, or when someone bombs a train, why are we surprised? We struggle to be kind, gentle, and peaceful because it is not in our nature. As difficult as it is to accept, we must, because that may be the first step in trying to suppress our problem.
Works Cited
Engles, Frederick. “Modern History Sourcebook.” Friederich Engels: Industrial Manchester, 1844 . August. 2007. 29 May 2007. <http://ww.forham.edu/halsall/mod/1844engels.html>.
Franklin, Ian. "18th Century Texts." Eighteenth Century Bibliography. 13 Feb. 2007. 26 May 2007 <http://www.c18th.com/author-works.aspx?id=4>.
Gallagher, Dorothy. "Making Ends Meet." NY Times. 12 May 2001. NY Times. 26 May 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/05/13/reviews/010513.13gallagt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>.
Hunt, Lynn, Barbara H. Rosenwein, Po-Chia R. Hsia, and Bonnie G. Smith. The Making of the West. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin\'s, 2005. 3-1224.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Barnes & Nobles Books, 2003. 5-224.
More, Thomas. Utopia. London: Penguin Books, 2003. 7-135.
"Topics for Individuals." IRS. 26 May 2007 <http://www.irs.gov/individuals/topic/index.html>.
Halsall , Paul. “Modern History Sourcebook” World War I Poetry. August, 1997. May 2007. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1914warpoets.html>
Good 
Gloomy 
Lonely 
Busy 
Self Detonate 
Relaxed 
Tired 
Nostalgic 
Sad 
